From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 109fba,e0a59694a441eb7b
X-Google-Thread: 103376,e0a59694a441eb7b
X-Google-Thread: fac41,e0a59694a441eb7b
X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,e0a59694a441eb7b
X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,gid103376,gidfac41,gid1108a1,public
Path: 
 controlnews3.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.news.ucla.edu!ihnp4.ucsd.edu!news.ucsd.edu!not-for-mail
From: Dr Chaos <mbkennelSPAMBEGONE@NOSPAMyahoo.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.eiffel,comp.object
Subject: Re: OOP Language for OS Development
Followup-To: comp.lang.eiffel
Date: Tue, 4 May 2004 18:37:49 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: Univ of Calif San Diego
Message-ID: <slrnc9font.88q.mbkennelSPAMBEGONE@lyapunov.ucsd.edu>
References: <95db0572.0404142153.431fd058@posting.google.com>
 <566e2bfb.0404181753.2844342f@posting.google.com>
 <ytOgc.39006$zm5.17464@nntpserver.swip.net>
 <c67sgr$2e0$1@news5.svr.pol.co.uk> <4088D574.2020503@tele2.fr>
 <c6ap5j$1nh$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk> <c6bfs3$ed7$1@a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de>
 <1082738747.300309@master.nyc.kbcfp.com>
 <ba03b545.0404231503.3ddeac5a@posting.google.com>
 <3AFic.17011$eK3.5247@nwrdny01.gnilink.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: lyapunov.ucsd.edu
X-Trace: news1.ucsd.edu 1083695869 28754 132.239.222.85 (4 May 2004 18:37:49
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@news1.ucsd.edu
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 4 May 2004 18:37:49 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: slrn/0.9.7.4 (Linux)
Xref: controlnews3.google.com comp.lang.c++:1549 comp.lang.ada:250
 comp.lang.eiffel:71 comp.object:684
Date: 2004-05-04T18:37:49+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Sun, 25 Apr 2004 02:42:07 GMT, Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com> wrote:
> Brian_Heilig wrote:
>> You missed the constrained generic parameter. G -> T means that G is
>> the generic type and it must conform to T. I don't think C++ templates
>> can emulate constrained generics yet, but I could be wrong.
> 
> They sort-of can, because there are ways to do the checks at compile time,
> but no one really cares. Most C++ folks consider it a mistake to try to
> limit generic parameters in this way, because it limits the usability of
> templates for absolutely no reason. 

If the programmer puts it there, usually there is a reason.

> If the template happens to work for
> some class that doesn't conform to T, why should it be prevented from doing
> so?

At some point, C programmers learned many years ago that

   *( (OhWhatTheFuck*) p) = whatever; 

can often seem clever, but is not wise. 

>> C++ will never reach the expressive power of Eiffel, but then again,
>> you can't make an Eiffel compiler solve factorials, so maybe you win?
> 
> Yeah, whatever.

Eiffel doesn't REQUIRE the type constraint.